Legalize Abortion?

[mannyamador]

---

[b][size=5]MANILA, Philippines – A leading Filipino obstetrician and gynecologist has stressed in an interview that contraceptives, in particular oral contraceptive pills, are not abortifacients because their action is to prevent ovulation and consequently conception, thus no abortion occurs.

It's amazing how ignorant this doctor is! Well, the evidence simply says otherwise.

• Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent
  Arch Fam Med -- Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent, February 2000, Larimore and Stanford 9 (2): 126
  
  
  It seems likely that for perfect use of COCs, postfertilization mechanisms would be likely to have a small but not negligible role. For POPs, COCs with lower doses of estrogen, and imperfect use of any OCs, postfertilization effects are likely to have an increased role. In any case, the medical literature does not support the hypothesis that postfertilization effects of OCs do not exist.
  
  
• Birth Control Pill: Abortifacient and Contraceptive
  By William F. Colliton, Jr., M.D., FACOG
  http://www.epm.org/artman2/publish/p...aceptive.shtml
  
  
  The next question raised by the authors is, "Is there actual clinical evidence of early miscarriage in pill users?" They note that the typical clinical picture of spontaneous abortion (heavy bleeding, severe cramping, passage of tissue) is rarely, if ever, seen by practicing physicians caring for patients on the pill. They seem to overlook the facts that the abortions caused by the BCP occur when the baby is 5 to 14-16 days old and that the lining of the uterus is "less vascular, less glandular, thinner" than normal as they described it. From the clinical perspective, one would anticipate a non-event, just as in over 60% of ectopic pregnancies. From the moral perspective, however, it is quite another story. What we are witnessing here is a tragic loss of God's children, totally innocent and made in His image. It is well to also remember that, from the moral perspective, the numbers don't matter. If one child is lost, the tragedy isn't lessened. Following this, the authors asked, "What is the conception rate for women on hormone contraception?" They answer correctly that it is impossible to say. However, earlier in their paper they noted, quite accurately, that the medical literature documents an incidence of 3-5 pregnancies per 100 women per year for pill users. Dr. Don Gambrell, Jr., a renowned gynecological endocrinologist addressed this issue during the educational segment of this same meeting. He noted a 14% incidence of ovulation in women taking the 50 microgram BCP. This rate varies from pill to pill and patient to patient. Simple logic informs one that every fertilization occurring in women on the pill doesn't result in a term "pill pregnancy" or a surgically induced abortion. But this is the precise thesis of those stating that the BCP is not abortifacient. Simple logic and deductive reasoning would suggest that many more than the clinically diagnosed pregnancies that occur are aborted because of the acyclic, unfavorable-for-implantation endometrium. If IVF practitioners relied on an endometrium that is "less vascular, less glandular, thinner" than that ideal for implantation, their success rate would approach zero today rather than the tens of thousands of babies born of that technology.
  
  
  
• CVS/Pharmacy (www.cvs.com), described the functions of IUDs in this manner:
  
  
  “IUDs are thought to prevent pregnancy by making the womb ‘unfriendly’ to sperm and eggs. Sperm is either killed, or kept from reaching and fertilizing an egg. An IUD also may keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb and growing into a baby.”

He adds, “When a particular hormone pill in use is too weak for an individual patient, there is bleeding, signaling that escape ovulation may become a risk in a few days. The patient is advised to abstain or use a second contraceptive method to avoid only even the risk of escape ovulation, and not pregnancy.”

There you go. This doctor just contradicted himself. he has unwittingly confirmed that there IS breakthrough ovulation. When a woman has *** when she ovulates, fertilization can occur during those times. The question then is why are so few of these pregnancies ever continued? The answer: the abortifacient mechanism of these abrotifacient contraceptives.

This doctor is so misinformed he's HILARIOUS!

this is a classic example of beating around the bush. i was asking you if you can cite any provisions that says selling of condoms, pills, and IUD are illegal. This is not about the RH Bill. I asked u a specific question and here u r making a different answer.

This is a classic example of OBFUSCATION and CHANGING THE SUBJECT. The assertion is that the RH bill is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. No claim was ever made that certain concoctions are illegal (unless there is a specific law that makes them so).

@wakkanaka and mannyboy: u see how ur misleading and deceptive efforts resulted into?

@unsay_ngalan_nimo is not confused and you know it. She's just partisan. Hardly a credible source. And you're being very deceptive -- AGAIN!

Anyway, what are you worried about? I doubt if your side is gonna lose this poll.

and another one here myt already be confused between our Abortion law and the proposed Reproductive Health Bill.

That's because the advocates of the anti-life RH bill are lying. The RH Bill DOES promote chemical abortion through abortifacient contraceptives despite their lip service to the existing law against surgical abortion.

NO TO ABORTION! NO TO THE ABORTION-PROMOTING RH BILL!

[giddyboy]

This is a classic example of OBFUSCATION and CHANGING THE SUBJECT. The assertion is that the RH bill is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. No claim was ever made that certain concoctions are illegal (unless there is a specific law that makes them so).

what subject change? aren't we supposed to talk about abortion here? again, tell me of any law here that supports any Constitutional provisions that says the condom, the pill, and the IUD are "abortifacients" thus illegal and unconstitutional. U CAN'T CAN U?

i have repeatedly asked u this and all i get is the runaround. ZERO!

or perhaps u want me to show here provisions that these are all legal?

@unsay_ngalan_nimo is not confused and you know it. She's just partisan. Hardly a credible source. And you're being very deceptive -- AGAIN!

Anyway, what are you worried about? I doubt if your side is gonna lose this poll.

wow! another classic case of an ad hominem runaround. if u wanna counter argue that the poll is not misleading nor a tricky double bind, u walk the talk!

and how could I lose when i also answered NO. but take note naay apan...

I was treating it as an open question so as not to fall into ur trap...and to show that i walk the talk:

Question: Should abortion and abortifacients be legalized thru the RH Bill?

Answer: No. coz I always say NO to abortion. The RH Bill explicitly treats abortion as a crime under our laws. Therefore, I support the RH Bill.

what im worried about? peeps like u who try to deceive and mislead people into believing abortion = RH Bill...and as if the other threads are not enough, u transferred ur circus in this thread called "Legalized Abortion?" trying to confuse people here...and im pretty sure im not the only one who saw that sly maneuver...

abi ba nako ang mga pro-life buotan. dili man diay...sa tinuod, anti-life man diay.

[mannyamador]

what subject change? aren't we supposed to talk about abortion here? again, tell me of any law here that supports any Constitutional provisions that says the condom, the pill, and the IUD are "abortifacients" thus illegal and unconstitutional.

Hahaha!!!! NO LAW IS NEEDED to declare something unconstitutional. In fact, no law can declare something unconstitutional. You really don't know how the law works, do you?

Admit it, you're just trying to obfuscate the issue. The issue is whether RH 5043 is unconstitutional (and the basis for saying whether it is or isn't). NOT whether there is another law saying certain contraceptives are "illegal" (since this was never asserted), therefore making it unconstitutional. A law that makes something ikllegal does NOT necessarily make that same thing unconstitutional. In fact, it is laws, statutes, or regulations themselves that can be declared unconstitutional. The actions that are proscribed by laws are illegal (but not necessarily unconstitutional). This is an important distinction that your are deliberately overlooking.

Your logic is wrong, and you're just using it to obfuscate the issue.

Again, I cite as my basis for my stand that HB 5043 is unconstitutional:

1. The Philippine Constitution, Section II, Article 12, which states that the unborn shall be protected from conception;

2. As well as the vote of the Constitutional Commission which assumed that conception begins at fertilization.

3. The RH Bill itself which promotes abortifacient contraceptives and classifies them as "essential medicines" (which they are not).

Therefore the RH bill in unconstitutional.

And you cite as your basis.... NOTHING?

HILARIOUS!

The RH Bill explicitly treats abortion as a crime under our laws. Therefore, I support the RH Bill.

But the RH bill also promotes chemical abortion by funding abortifacient contraceptives. Another contradiction.

what im worried about? peeps like u who try to deceive and mislead people into believing abortion = RH Bill.

Looks like you just can't stand the truth. The RH bill promotes chemical abortion. Get over it.

[Vortex_xxx]

ngano ang contraceptives mahimo man nga chemical abortion?? nga unta ang contraceptives mao man ang mo prevent para dili mag abot ang sperm og egg nga mahimo nga baby?? so kung dili mag abot ang sperm og egg walay ma buo nga life??

nangutana lang...

[mannyamador]

ngano ang contraceptives mahimo man nga chemical abortion?? nga unta ang contraceptives mao man ang mo prevent para dili mag abot ang sperm og egg nga mahimo nga baby?? so kung dili mag abot ang sperm og egg walay ma buo nga life??

If a contraceptive ONLY prevents the fertilization of the egg by the sperm, then it is not abortifacient. The plain condom does this so it is NOT an abortifacient.

Oral contraceptives, IUDs, implantables and injectables, on the other hand, do MORE than prevent ovulation or fertilization. They also prevent the fertilized egg (which is a newly-conceived human being) from implanting in the urerus. ith nowhere to implant, the fertilized egg eventually dies. THIS IS AN EARLY-TERM CHEMICAL ABORTION. These contraceptives should not be in the same category as condoms since their mechanism of operation is entirely different.

Please see the post above:
https://www.istorya.net/forums/politi...ml#post4768972

Some other abortifacients such as RU-486 can even cause the implanted fetus to detach from the uterus, thus eventually causing the pre-born person to die,.

NO TO ABORTION! NO TO THE ABORTIFACIENT-PROMOTING RH BILL!

[Hellblazer 2.1]

Abstinence is a better solution...

i beg to disagree, sir. i don't agree with abortion either. i still think that pills and condoms should be widely accepted as a safe-way for population control and not abstinence. kung mag-abstinence na man gani, maypa magpa vasectomy na lang or tube ligation. abstain from s3x? yeah right, like that's effective. couple will always enjoy s3x sir. it's not quite practical to ask them not to have s3x.

[mannyamador]

abstain from s3x? yeah right, like that's effective. couple will always enjoy s3x sir. it's not quite practical to ask them not to have s3x.

No one is asking people to NEVER have ***. Abstinence involves having *** at the right time. Besides, in the long run, over a given population, Natural Family Planning (NFP -- which involves periods of abstinence), is just as effective as the most effective artificial methods (and even more effective than most of them).

• NFP and Effectiveness
  NFP Information Site
  
  
  In reality, modern Natural Family Planning methods perform extremely respectably against other forms of family planning. Effectiveness levels are 99% or higher, comparing with 99%+ for the Pill and 97% for the Condom.
  
  . . .
  
  In a variety of studies over the last 15 years, NFP has been shown to provide a high level of effectiveness among populations of many countries and cultures. Placing these results - whether measured by Pearl Index calculations or by Life Table methods - alongside other family planning methods leaves NFP ahead of the majority of methods, and behind only the Pill and the IUD, both of which have abortifacient mechanisms (for more detail on this see this part of 'Contraception - Why not? on this website). For those motivated primarily by effectiveness, but who respect human life from its conception and/or wish to avoid pharmacological side effects, Natural Family Planning should be the method of choice.
  
  
• Natural Family Planning Method As Effective As Contraceptive Pill, New Research Finds
  Natural Family Planning Method As Effective As Contraceptive Pill, New Research Finds
  
  
  The lead author of the report, Petra Frank-Herrmann, assistant professor and managing director of the natural fertility section in the Department of Gynaecological Endocrinology at the University of Heidelberg, Germany, said: "For a contraceptive method to be rated as highly efficient as the hormonal pill, there should be less than one pregnancy per 100 women per year when the method is used correctly. The pregnancy rate for women who used the STM method correctly in our study was 0.4%, which can be interpreted as one pregnancy occurring per 250 women per year. Therefore, we maintain that the effectiveness of STM is comparable to the effectiveness of modern contraceptive methods such as oral contraceptives, and is an effective and acceptable method of family planning."
  
  
• The Effectiveness Of Natural Family Planning
  by John Kippley
  Part 2 — METHOD EFFECTIVENESS
  Method Effectiveness - Natural Family Planning
  
  
  • The Los Angeles Study
    100% Method Effectiveness
    
    
  • The Fairfield Study
    99% Method Effectiveness
    
    
  • The Roetzer Studies
    99% and 100% Method Effectiveness
    
    
  • The Doring Temperature-Only Study
    99% and 100% Method Effectiveness
    
    
  • The Vincent Study
    99% Method Effectiveness
  
  
  
  Conclusion 1. Studies conducted in Canada, Colombia, France, Germany, Mauritius and the United States have demonstrated a 99% method effectiveness for the Sympto-Thermal and Temperature-Only Methods. These studies were conducted under a variety of conditions and demonstrate beyond any reasonable question of a doubt that this extremely high effectiveness can be achieved by ordinary couples who receive adequate instruction and follow the relatively simple rules of these methods.
  
  
• The Effectiveness Of Natural Family Planning
  by John Kippley
  Part 3 — USER EFFECTIVENESS
  User Effectiveness - Natural Family Planning Effectiveness
  
  
  Conclusion 2. Studies conducted in Austria, Canada, Colombia, France, Germany, Mauritius and the United States have demonstrated a user effectiveness ranging from 85% to 99%. The evidence also strongly supports the common sense notion that the lower effectiveness rates will be found in groups which contain a significant proportion of couples who have no serious reason for postponing pregnancy
  .

Furthermore, studies also show that increased contraceptive use leads to more unwanted pregnancies (because of increased promiscuity, risk-compensation behavior, and increased contraceptive failure). This leads to even more demand for abortion.

• Habit Persistence and Teen ***: Could Increased Access to Contraception have Unintended Consequences for Teen Pregnancies?
  http://www.econ.duke.edu/~psarcidi/teensex.pdf
  
  
  The persistence in sexual activity is such that policies that affect access to contraception will have very different effects in the short run than the long run. Our results suggest that increasing access to contraception may actually increase long run pregnancy rates even though short run pregnancy rates fall. On the other and, policies that decrease access to contraception, and hence sexual activity, are likely to lower pregnancy rates in the long run.

So in the end, promoting contraceptives is actually counter-productive.

[Hellblazer 2.1]

scheduled S3X? hell no. where's the fun in that? ('c',)

[mannyamador]

scheduled S3X? hell no. where's the fun in that? ('c',)

Hahaha!!! Schedule the fun? Hehehe....

Seriously though, there's more at stake than fun.

Older post:
https://www.istorya.net/forums/politi...ml#post4168363

[Hellblazer 2.1]

Hahaha!!! Schedule the fun? Hehehe....

Seriously though, there's more at stake than fun.

like what?